John P. Mastando III

How Judge Mastando rules, drawn from 62 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
Position
Bankruptcy judge
Commissioned
August 9, 2022
Education
Columbia College, B.A.; Columbia Law School, J.D.
Signed orders read
62

About Judge Mastando

John P. Mastando III has served as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York since August 9, 2022. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Columbia University. Before joining the court, he practiced litigation at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and clerked for a federal district judge in Florida.

Judge Mastando's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Mastando, as published on the court's website (checked October 10, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.

Key rules

Contacting chambers

Request a hearing date by email to Mastando’s courtroom deputy before filing a motion that requires a hearing.

“All scheduling requests should be directed to the Courtroom Deputy by emailing [email protected].”

Filing

Provide two hard copies of every pleading and its exhibits to Chambers when filing and serving.

“Parties must provide two copies of every pleading, with exhibits, to Chambers at the time of filing and service.”

Motions

Limit moving and responsive briefs to 30 pages and reply briefs to 15 pages unless the court permits otherwise.

“Except as permitted by the Court, moving and responsive briefs shall be no more than 30 pages in length. Reply briefs shall be no more than 15 pages exclusive of the table of contents and table of authorities.”

How Judge Mastando decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In In re Chen Foundation, Inc., he found that the debtor and its affiliates jointly operated an art-selling business, which weighed against treating the debtor as a passive real-estate owner.

“The Debtor and its Non-Debtor Affiliates are thus engaged in a joint commercial enterprise that operates at the direction of the same owners in pursuit of the same end: the sale of art.”

In In re Moche, he found that an 85% equity cushion adequately protected the bank against the requested stay relief.

“On this record, the existence of an 85% equity cushion alone provides the Bank with adequate protection.”

In Togut v. Lim, he vacated a default after finding a potentially meritorious defense and no significant prejudice to the trustee.

“Bakery has presented a potentially meritorious defense; and the Trustee acknowledges that vacatur would not cause significant prejudice.”

Procedural preferences

In Lee v. Ahne Law, P.C., he held that the defendants’ request for judgment as a matter of law after the verdict was procedurally barred because they had not preserved it before the verdict.

“their request for a post-verdict judgment matter of law is therefore procedurally barred.”

Cautions

In In re Albert Zihenni, he found bad faith in the Chapter 13 filing based on missed filings and plan payments, together with the timing of an impending foreclosure.

“The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the Debtor’s bad faith in filing the Chapter 13 petition, including the lack of filings made in the case despite multiple extensions, the failure to make plan payments of any kind, and the timing of the Chapter 13 petition relative to the then-impending foreclosure sale of the Shares.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

In re Albert Zihenni
26-10829 · 2026-08-19
Motion to dismiss bankruptcy case (Chapter 13 trustee) Granted

“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Motion for relief from automatic stay (60 E. 9th St. Owners Corp.) Granted in part

“The Stay Relief Motion is MOOT in part and GRANTED in part: the Co-op is GRANTED prospective relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) from relief from any automatic stay imposed by any Debtor’s future bankruptcy filings within 180 days of the entry of this order.”

Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique SA
· 2025-05-09
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (CBH Compagnie Bancaire Helvétique SA) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.”

Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch International
· 2024-02-07
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Merrill Lynch International) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.”

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
· 2025-09-29
Motion for reconsideration (Credit One Bank, N.A.) Denied

“Defendant’s Reconsideration Motion (Docket No. 244) is DENIED.”

Motion to compel arbitration (Credit One Bank, N.A.) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Arbitrate (Docket No, 245) is DENIED”

Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (Credit One Bank, N.A.) Denied
Lee v. Kim (In re Basic Food Group, LLC)
· 2024-09-18

After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendant on a fraud-in-the-inducement claim; no party motion was adjudicated.

Lee v. Ahne Law, P.C. (In re Basic Food Group, LLC)
· 2024-09-27
Motion for judgment as matter of law or new trial (Plaintiffs) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion found at [Doc. 319] and [Doc. 320] is DENIED accordingly.”

Silverman v. Carob Bean Realty Corp. II (In re Liberty Bridge Capital Management GP, LLC)
· 2024-09-24
Summary judgment (Chapter 7 Trustee) Denied

“The Trustee’s Motion. [Doc. 28] and [Doc. 30], is therefore DENIED, and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 32] is GRANTED.”

Cross motion for summary judgment (Carob Bean Realty Corp. II) Granted
In re Hal Luftig Company, Inc.
· 2025-02-24
Objection to plan confirmation (FCP Entertainment Partners, LLC) Denied

“Accordingly, FCP’s Final Objection is OVERRULED, and the Third Amended Plan is CONFIRMED.”

Plan confirmation (Hal Luftig Company, Inc.) Granted
In re Eletson Holdings Inc.
· 2025-03-06
Motion for stay pending appeal (Purported Provisional Eletson Holdings Inc., Reed Smith LLP, and former majority shareholders) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Stay Motion is DENIED. 6”

In re Vice Group Holding Inc.
· 2023-07-07
Motion to assume and assign contract (Debtors) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Debtors’ Motion to assume and assign the Showtime Contract and overrules the Showtime Objection.”

Objection to assumption and assignment (Showtime Networks Inc.) Denied
In re UFP Holding I, LLC
· 2025-11-25
Motion to dismiss or convert chapter 11 case (United States Trustee) Granted

“In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, the Motion [Dkt. No. 25] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”

In re Moche
· 2026-04-13
Motion to withdraw as counsel (Adrienne Woods) Granted

“The Motion of Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. No. 66) is GRANTED.”

Request for attorney charging lien (Adrienne Woods) Granted

“Woods is granted an attorney’s charging lien, pursuant to New York Judiciary Law § 475, in the amount of $58,459.90, against Wolfson’s claim, cause of action, and any recovery thereon.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

All six sampled matters remained pending in the public metadata. The Zihenni stream supplied four express outcomes.

Draft for Judge Mastando with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mastando, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Mastando's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace